"And I think people do care. Do you run around throwing around racial slurs at people? I bet not. Sure it's just words, but those words mean something to a lot of people" --Pro_fan

"I sure don't. Throwing around racial slurs to people is totally different from the "Under God" phrase. There's no comparison at all." --flip703


Mr. 703, I think Mr. Fan was just trying to make a point.

Certainly, most people are not going to argue that the words "under God," in and of themselves, are as offensive as a racial slur.

The point was about the POWER that words can have.

Why did the federal court spend any time at all ruling on this?
Why are any of us in this forum debating this?

If words DIDN'T have that power, we wouldn't be.

"hmmm, all these babies crying about whether or not my child should have to say "the pledge" should just shut the f#ck up and concentrate on more important issues. What would those be you ask?

-gun control
-violence (sex, racial, bullying)
-drugs
-actually preparing our kids to worry and b!tch about important issues

No one forces anyone to say the pledge. and believe me, these kids hear a lot worse than "under God"..." ---onehawaiian


Mr. Hawaiian:

Of course, we have many more crucial issues facing us as a society. And yes, kids are exposed to so much today, stuff that might be considered far more offensive than those two words.

But part of "preparing our kids to worry and bitch about important issues" includes teaching them to think about what they are saying. Goes back to Mr. Fan's argument about racial slurs.

And yes, in most places, kids are allowed to refrain from saying the Pledge in school...but what message is that sending to the kids? To their peers?

"Oh, you weird religious fanatic/rabid atheist--you don't love your country as much as I do."

There is absolutely no good reason why patriotism and religion should have anything to do with one another.


"In Dale We Trust!!!" ---ZoomZoomH

That's right, baby...and don't you forget it!!

 

i hear what you are saying, but let's face it, it's way out of hand. we're talking about a time-honored pledge that DOES NOT hurt anyone.

on september 11th, did anyone b!tch when school kids sang "America the Beautiful", or "God Bless America"? (when the congressmen and senators sang on the steps of the capital)

hmmm. is that what we need to put aside such petty issues, another attack on our beloved country?
kids here refrain from saying the pledge and no one bothers them. whether it be a patriotic issue or religous, kids more-or-less don't even care about the pledge anyways since they barely understand what it is they are pledging for.

as far as "no good reason", the fact that this country was founded on christian principles is a good enough reason. why dishonor all that they fought and worked for?

i'm not fighting for/against this issue, i am stating that this is a very petty issue that doesn't hurt anyone as it is not forcing anyone to believe in a certain religion or even to recite the pledge. i'm just saying focus all this energy on something a little more positive instead of something that will raise little debates in a forum dedicated to cars.

 

1. God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.

you dont have to link god to just one faith. the only people that this does work for is atheist. so in that reason yeah maybe it should be dropped.

 

also people of POLYTHEISTIC faiths (e.g. Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism) may be uncomfortable with the declaration of a singular omnipotent being.

Let's just watch and see how the Supreme Court will rule on this when it gets there

 

no it still works for them in a way. look past section A and on to the rest.

b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.

 

well yes cuz i know some really hot atheists. im up for how about the rest of you. lol nooooo jesse i thought out anyone you would atleast read each post.

now as of ognostics. i have no idea what that is. i even try to look it up and came up with nothing.

 

That's because it's spelled 'agnostic.'

 

I don't think that it does work for them. Look at the wording of the definitions:

"b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being .
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol. supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god. "

So you see according to this definition, there is ONE God and not many, and therefore this definition cannot apply to polytheistic If you capitalize God you are talking about "the Lord Almighty", but if you are talking gods as in Zeus and Posseidon, then it is all lower case.

 

BTW, the Earth is closer 4.6 Billion years old

 

Well ask an Earth Scientist (ie. Me) and they'll tell you 4.6 billion LOL! BTW, I'm just F*&king around here on the age of the earth issue!

 

Hmmm...

We have a faction that believes we shouldn't have "under God" in the Pledge and that we shouldn't have "In God We Trust" on our currency and that we shouldn't be forced upon Christian prayer at events and ceremonies.

We have a faction that believes we should have "under God" in the Pledge and that we should have "In God We Trust" on our currency and that we should be forced upon Christian prayer at events and ceremonies.

We have a faction that believes it doesn't matter either way.

And, it's starting to become a somewhat heated debate.

This is precisely why we have the Separation of Church and State and the Freedom of Religion. Can you imagine if Congress sat and debated over what religion they should force upon the people? We would probably have a massacre in the Capitol building because people can get very heated when debating who is right about what deity that does or does not exist. Our forefathers were very smart, indeed.

The Constitution exists for a reason. It cannot and may not change to suit the political desires of the current administration. It stands to provide a common basis for the how the nation is run. The Freedom of Religion and the Separation of Church and State is very key to our form of government. So is the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, which I see the same people who want to take away the first amendment also would like to see the second amendment go. What's next? Shall we just burn the Constitution and we'll form a dictatorship run by the Church? Oh wait, that's exactly what our forefathers shed blood revolting against!

-Jerry

 

6000 years doesn't allow for the existence of my beloved Dinosaurs
Why God why????

 

where does it say that you cant have more the one.

 

Sigh....
It says "of THIS being"...that is singular.
It says "A being"...again singular
It says "An image of A supernatural being" <---singular
It says "ONE that is worshipped". <----Need I point it out again?

These are all singular, referring to ONE GOD.
Look, I'm just messing around with semantics here. Basically, if you talk about God (capital G) you mean Judeo-christianity's God.

If you say god (ie. He was the god of thunder, or the gods gathered around the oracle), then you mean that there is more than one being.

 

yes i know those are singular. but it still doesnt mean you cant have more then one. they are singular b/c the word god is. you need one god before you can have gods.

also i dont think that is true. not all the time when someone talks about God do they mean Judeo-christianity's God. i dont.